We performed a comparison between Kaseya VSA and Microsoft Configuration Manager based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Patch Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Kaseya VSA's best features are auditing and reporting."
"The patch management and the remote support are very good, especially the remote support. There is a module built into the solution which allows remote control without necessarily interrupting the user. We could manage things in the background without them seeing or interacting with anything, which is a very useful feature."
"VSA installs an agent on every computer that allows users to create a help desk ticket with one click. That's why I chose VSA. Many users never create tickets when they have a problem. Sometimes I won't know about an issue until they run into me and say, "Hey, this has been broken for two months.""
"Kesaya is highly configurable."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its ability to offer control remotely to its users and provide patching capabilities to users."
"The solution was scalable."
"Provides efficient automation."
"The product's support team is very quick to respond, especially because the tool's technical team operates in the same time zone where I am located."
"It is easy to install, and quick to deploy."
"What's valuable is the basic management of the systems, being able to control who can access the systems."
"Automation of operating system, application, and update deployments massively reduces IT operations effort."
"It lets you know what your infrastructure is like and what state you are in."
"The solution doesn't require any maintenance from our end because it is a cloud-based solution and Microsoft takes care of everything."
"The solution is stable."
"There have to be made some improvement in WSUS and control in other non-Microsoft products updates."
"Microsoft is being very competitive right now, and they are really investing in a lot of new features to be more competitive in the marketplace."
"The technical support of the solution is an area with shortcomings that needs improvement."
"The predefined reports are not up to the mark and you have to do a lot of customization."
"The user interface is somewhat outdated."
"Our main concern is related to security. Kaseya had a ransomware attack a few months ago, and it was a big concern for us because Kaseya was the main RMM tool that we were using. We faced a lot of difficulties accessing our users and systems. So, security is our main concern."
"There is room for improvement in the remote control strengths."
"The response to bugs is slow and software improvement comes slowly too. The lack of response to our feature requests made it feel like they were going into a black hole. Additionally, when we encountered bugs or issues with the VSA, they were slow to respond to those too."
"The way it is laid out can be improved. If it could be a little more intuitive, it might be a little bit easier. Sometimes, it is hard to find features because they're called something weird, or they're in an interesting location that you wouldn't have thought that they'd be in."
"I have been looking for a way to deploy patches via the internet to selected equipment from Kaseya VSA, but it seems impossible."
"The ability to integrate MDM would be great."
"The setup was complex and I faced a lot of problems initially because I was new to the solution."
"Regarding this, I'd like to mention the agent situation. When the agent on an end-user device is not functioning correctly, it can be quite problematic. It would be highly beneficial if there were a self-healing mechanism in place. Essentially, if the agent becomes corrupted or encounters issues, it should be able to rectify itself autonomously. This is particularly critical because, in order to utilize a tool like MECM (assuming you're referring to Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager), we need to deploy agents, known as AsMs, on all the devices we use, such as Windows 10 or Windows Server. Sometimes, when we deploy configurations or updates, they don't apply properly due to agent issues. This issue has been present since we began using MECM around 23 years ago. Unfortunately, there is currently no built-in mechanism for the agent to detect its own problems and initiate self-repair. Microsoft doesn’t have any feature to scan vulnerabilities and hence, they could include those."
"SCCM does not scale well, which is one of the reasons we are not going to continue to use it."
"The solution should be more compatible with different versions of Linux."
"The TSM component could be improved."
"A lot of experience is needed in terms of troubleshooting, as this is one of the most difficult tasks in MECM. We were seven people in a group and I was the only one that had the patience to do the troubleshooting at times."
"Cloud-based improvements need to be better managed."
More Microsoft Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Kaseya VSA is ranked 4th in Patch Management with 29 reviews while Microsoft Configuration Manager is ranked 1st in Patch Management with 76 reviews. Kaseya VSA is rated 7.6, while Microsoft Configuration Manager is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Kaseya VSA writes "Single portal management, cost-saving, with thorough technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Configuration Manager writes "Seamless system updates, useful integration, and reliable". Kaseya VSA is most compared with ConnectWise Automate, NinjaOne, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services, Datto Remote Monitoring and Management and N-able N-central, whereas Microsoft Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, Microsoft Intune, BigFix and Zabbix. See our Kaseya VSA vs. Microsoft Configuration Manager report.
See our list of best Patch Management vendors.
We monitor all Patch Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.